Pattern of Publication of Ophthalmic Abstracts in Peer-reviewed Journals

Juzych, Mark S; Shin, Dong Ho; Coffey, John; Parrow, Kyle A.; Tsai, Clark S.; Briggs, Karen S.

doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(91)32256-5

Cited by 66 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean publication rate of 26.6% we have described is substantially lower than the mean of 44.5% from the 79 biomedical reports shown in the latest Cochrane review by Scherer et al 1 This disparity is even greater when compared with the 63.0% shown in American ophthalmic conference abstracts by Juzych et al [2][3][4] Like Sherer et al 1 abstract follow-up was a minimum of 2 years. Sherer et al also demonstrated that basic science, RCTs, and oral presentation were three significant predictors of publication; hazard ratios 1.27 (CI 1.12-1.42), 1.24 (CI 1.14-1.36), and 1.28 (CI 1.09-1.49), respectively.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 53%

“…International Ophthalmology conferences such as ARVO and the American Academy of Ophthalmology attract presentations of some of the highest quality UK research, a large proportion of which are basic science. [2][3] However, The Royal College of Ophthalmologists Annual Congress was chosen for comparison as it is a conference that traditionally sees a high proportion of trainee-led presentations, therefore, authors are likely to have had their training affected by the Walport report.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Reports of UK ophthalmic presentation to publication rates are absent from the literature at the time of writing and there is a paucity of any such ophthalmic studies internationally. [2][3][4] In biomedical research, publication has often been suggested to be influenced by the quality of research, a positive outcome and the time available to researchers. This last factor has been reported as the most common reason for nonpublication, as well as difficulties between coauthors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An 8-year longitudinal analysis of UK ophthalmic publication rates

Okonkwo

Hogg

Figueiredo

2016

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 53%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An 8-year longitudinal analysis of UK ophthalmic publication rates

Okonkwo

Hogg

Figueiredo

2016

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some of the works presented at national meetings are performed by students, residents, and research fellows who have changing interests or insufficient time, preventing the production of a complete manuscript [14]. We made no attempt to contact the authors of abstracts who failed to publish.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

DeMola

Hill

Rogers

et al. 2008

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many shoulder and elbow abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting are cited in the orthopaedic literature or are used to guide orthopaedic practice, but not all of these abstracts are submitted, survive peer review, or eventually are published. Presuming unpublished works have not been scientifically confirmed, one could question whether it is academically responsible to cite abstracts presented at the AAOS before they are peer-reviewed and published. To partly address this issue we determined the peer-reviewed publication rate for 558 abstracts (233 papers and 325 posters) presented at the shoulder and elbow sessions of the AAOS from 1999 to 2004. In April 2007, we searched the computerized database MEDLINE 1 and PubMed 1 for published articles based on these abstracts. We examined the published articles to assess publication rate, time to publication, change in contents, change in authors, and change in conclusions of abstracts. The overall publication rate in peer-reviewed journals was 58% (321 of 558), similar to other orthopaedic meetings and medical disciplines. We believe it is unacceptable to cite shoulder and elbow abstracts submitted to the AAOS because only slightly more than ½ (58%) of them are authenticated scientifically.

show abstract

“…Not all abstracts are converted into full manuscript publications, and the rate of conversion ranges from 11 to 78%. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Previous reports have shown that statistically positive results, [12][13][14][15][16][17] acceptance at major conferences, 7,12,13,18,19 oral presentations at conferences, 9,[20][21][22][23] basic science research 11,15,20 and randomized controlled trials 1,15,24 are likely enabling factors for this conversion. Authors have reported that lack of time, difficulty with co-authors, low priority for publication and methodological limitation are the main disabling factors for successful publication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enablers and disablers allowing trainees' abstracts to proceed to full manuscripts: lessons from a large neonatal training program

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To study trainee and supervisor perspectives for success or failure of conversion of abstracts to full manuscripts.Study Design: Abstracts presented by trainees between 2000 and 2005 were identified from the syllabi of the Paediatric Academic Society, Canadian Paediatric Society and Hot Topics meetings. The trainee and senior supervisor for each abstract were asked to complete a web-based survey that explored enablers and disablers.Result: Of the 187 abstracts identified, 62 (33%) had trainees as primary authors. Of these, the responses of 42 (68%) trainees and 50 (81%) supervisors were collected; the responses of 21 (50%) trainees and 19 (38%) supervisors reported success in converting the abstract to a manuscript. According to trainees, good research idea, supportive supervisors and practical design were the main enablers, whereas limited time for research and the limited data collection only for abstracts were the main disablers. According to supervisors, adequate research time and the trainees' interest were the main enablers, whereas limited data collection and lack of trainees' interest were the main disablers. Specified research training, allocation of protected research time and making publication mandatory were suggested by both to enhance publication rate. Conclusion:Training programs should consider research training needs and provide dedicated time to improve research productivity by trainees.

show abstract

Pattern of Publication of Ophthalmic Abstracts in Peer-reviewed Journals

Cited by 66 publications

References 9 publications

An 8-year longitudinal analysis of UK ophthalmic publication rates

An 8-year longitudinal analysis of UK ophthalmic publication rates

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

Enablers and disablers allowing trainees' abstracts to proceed to full manuscripts: lessons from a large neonatal training program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About